Boston Criminal Attorney Bloghttp://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com
Published by Boston, Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer — William D. Kickham, Attorney At LawTue, 29 Nov 2016 03:47:18 +0000en-UShourly1118832247BostonCriminalAttorneyBlogComhttps://feedburner.google.comBlack Friday Shopping Store Injuries: Uncivilized Masses, or Et Tu, Brutus?http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2016/11/black-friday-shopping-store-injuries-uncivilized-masses-et-tu-brutus.html
Sat, 26 Nov 2016 07:44:03 +0000http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/?p=787Well, well – here we are: Black Friday, that ignominious day in the American calendar when otherwise (and I use this term liberally) “normal” people, turn into openly aggressive, violent, even maniacal individuals – all in the name of scoring a few less dollars on the latest wide screen TV or pair of sneakers. To quote an aphorism that has become quite true, “Because only in America, do people trample others for sales exactly one day after being thankful for what they already have.” How bad is this problem? In just the past eight years, from 2006 to 2014, the total death count involving Black Friday shopping incidents has reached seven deaths. Visually, try to think of being in a cemetery and seeing seven gravestones, each reading “Killed in a store by other shoppers the day after Thanksgiving.” Two of those deaths were the result of people actually being “trampled” by aggressive shoppers. Two more were shooting deaths, and the remaining fatalities were due car crashes that were directly related to Black Friday shopping.

And the number of people seriously injured in these displays of animalistic degradation? Almost 100 (98.) Those injuries are largely resulted from either stampeding crowds or shoppers fighting over merchandise. In a 2011 incident, an off duty police officer had to use pepper spray on Black Friday shoppers in North Carolina, injuring 20 people.

But of course, now that Black Friday 2016 is almost over, those numbers are now even higher: Very early this morning (Friday, Nov. 25 2016) two people were shot — one to death — outside a Macy’s Department store in a southern New Jersey mall awaiting its Black Friday opening, according to news reports. In Reno, Nevada, police there are looking for a suspect in a deadly attack they say was over a parking spot at a Reno Walmart Thanksgiving night. At this point it’s a little sketchy to say whether or not it’s directly connected to Black Friday shopping, but at present it has all the markings of being so. In Memphis, Tennessee, a person was shot outside Wolfchase Galleria Mall. Police have reported that the incident occurred as shoppers were taking part in early Black Friday sales at the mall.

What is wrong with people? What kind of a people have we become, and even more importantly, how and why have we devolved so? That, unfortunately, is a question that demands the analysis of psychologists specializing in group behavior, psychiatrists, sociologists, criminologists, and even theologians. I wish I could bring such specialists together in a video post to this blog, but as a Massachusetts assault & battery lawyer, I’ve seen enough to provide my own professional view of this phenomenon.

Simply, it’s called mass desensitization. Violence in the media on a level that is inhuman – all kinds of media: Entertainment media, news media, the internet and violent video games. Mass shootings. Mass murders. TV shows that celebrate cruelty to others on a scale that can be twisted and depraved. (Ever seen “Survival”? “The Bachelor?” Or a certain show called “The Apprentice”? These popular shows propagate and celebrate psychological and physical cruelty to others. Trust me, they aren’t the movies, TV shows and game shows I grew up with. Much of it is on a scale that is depraved.

What hasn’t changed is the law: In Massachusetts, you can be charged with a variety of criminal offenses if you are arrested as an aggressor in a violent shopping incident – Massachusetts assault & battery, resisting arrest and mayhem are common charges in these events. Do yourself a favor: If you want to go shopping for a deal, on Black Friday or any day of the year, act like a civilized person. Or as a Boston criminal defense lawyer, I can assure you: The next person you see may not be a cashier – it’ll be a judge.

]]>787Massachusetts Gun Permit Applications Skyrockethttp://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2016/11/massachusetts-gun-permit-applications-skyrocket.html
Sat, 19 Nov 2016 18:00:48 +0000http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/?p=780More and more these days, I get calls from people who want me to assist them in obtaining a Massachusetts firearms license (gun permit,) or to represent them in an appeal of a permit denial they have received. Importantly, these aren’t people who have been accused of committing any crimes – they’re law-abiding citizens who want to legally carry a gun. Even more striking, the vast majority of these people have never carried any kind of firearm before.

Some who are reading this post this might think these people are suspicious types – ne’er do wells, uneducated people, or hunters. As a Massachusetts gun license lawyer, I can assure anyone: They’re not. In fact, the vast majority of them are educated, working people who never before though that they’d ever want to own a gun – but now they want to. What drives them to want this?

The answer is a toxic mix of factors:

The shocking increase in mass shootings across the country – and they fear that one day, they themselves might be in a store, in a theatre, or on a street where a mass murderer starts shooting people, left and right.

Women who fear being assaulted

Business owners who transport cash and other valuables to and from their places of business

Motorists who fear that a road-rage driver could follow open fire on them, or follow them to their destination and then open fire.

Everyday people who see and fear the exponentially increasing violence in movies, violent video games, and even “music.”

Such people are not imagining these threats. They are very real. Like it or not – and dispensing with nationalistic chest-thumping about how America is the “greatest nation on earth,” the fact is that we live in a violent, violent society. I don’t think it’s ever been more violent. We’ve become “used to” it, but just look at everyday life in America has changed over just the past dozen years or so:

Massachusetts state office buildings, from the Massachusetts State House, own (as well as other states) all have metal detectors at each entrance. All people and packages entering these buildings, have to be scanned and searched for weapons of any kind, or explosives.

All Massachusetts courts require the same. The only exception: Licensed attorneys.

Private office buildings have security guards posted in the lobbies, and almost no one is allowed entrance without ID and a clearance phone call to the person the visitor is seeing.

Movie theatres are now staffed with uniformed, armed police officers.

High schools – and even grammar schools – are now equipped with metal detectors and some even have armed police officers on site.

The number of home invasions has increased, higher than ever before.

Department stores employ additional security spotters – having nothing to do with shoplifters or loss control. Their sole function is to profile people who may present a threat of violence.

None of these things existed when I was growing up. In fact, none of these things existed until the early 2000’s. So it is easy to see why many people fear for their personal safety, and the safety of their families and loved ones. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants citizens the right to carry weapons.

Yet gun control advocates have their own arguments to limit the number of people given Massachusetts gun licenses – they could even cite some of those same facts above, to support their arguments.

What, then, do we do about this conflict? I’ll talk about that in Part Two of this post, later this week.

]]>780MASSACHUSETTS DRUG CRIMES: CHARGED DOESN’T MEAN GUILTY – PART TWO OF TWOhttp://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2016/10/massachusetts-drug-crimes-charged-doesnt-mean-guilty-part-two-two.html
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 05:08:34 +0000http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/?p=776In my previous post on this topic, I wrote about how prosecutors in Massachusetts must prove that any allegedly illegal substances that the Commonwealth accuses a defendant of possessing, using, or distributing, have actually been tested by a qualified chemist in the state drug lab, and that the substance is indeed either a controlled substance or an illegal drug. That’s the first, threshold legal issue in any Massachusetts drug offenses prosecution.

In that previous post, I outlined the required police process of inventorying and safeguarding any suspected controlled substances, to make sure that the chain of custody of the alleged illegal drug(s), from the arrest scene to the police station, to the state drug testing lab (formally called the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory,) to the particular District Attorney’s office that is prosecuting the case, to the courtroom where the case is tried, remains untainted in any way. Because if that safeguarding process is in any way deviated from, it can potentially result in an otherwise innocent defendant, being convicted of a Massachusetts drug crime. I can assure you, as aMassachusetts drug offense lawyer, that drug inventorying and testing protocols are critically important in these cases. Prior to a few years ago, the process of appropriate inventorying and appropriate testing of alleged illegal drugs in drug crimes cases was thought to be fairly reliable. Then along came a woman named Annie Dookhan. She was a chemist employed by the Massachusetts state drug lab. It was her job to test substances that police and prosecutors believed were illegal drugs.

To make a very long story short, it was discovered that Ms. Dookhan had been routinely falsifying that a variety of substances were illegal drugs or controlled substances, when in many cases, they were not. Why she did this, remains uncertain, but she was prosecuted and sentenced to jail for her actions. Fast forward to the present, and a similar scenario continues to unfold in the Braintree Massachusetts Police Department. Last spring (2016,) it was discovered that large amounts of drugs and weapons that had been stored in the Evidence Room at the Braintree Police Department, had gone missing. (The Evidence Room of a Police Department is where alleged contraband is held until it is transported to prosecutors.) At least two missing guns were found in the home of the Braintree police officer in charge of the Evidence Room, Susan Zopatti. Officer Zopatti committed suicide in May.

An internal investigation was launched, which revealed that in excess of $400,000 in cash, approximately 60 to 70 guns, and thousands of drug samples had disappeared from the evidence room. Earlier this month, the Braintree Police Chief, Russell Jenkins, resigned from the Department. Chief Jenkins had been at the Braintree Police Department 33 years, the last four as its chief. This breach in protocol has tainted potentially putting hundreds of criminal prosecutions, and the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office has already dismissed several drug cases.

All of this illustrates more powerfully yet once again: Just because a person is accused of committing a crime, doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she is legally guilty. If you or someone you care about has been arrested or accused of a Massachusetts drug offense, make sure that the law firm and attorney you hire has two provable things: 1) Many years of experience defending Massachusetts drug cases, and 2) A proven track record of success with those cases. Don’t leave a case like this to a general practice attorney: The stakes are too high.

]]>776Massachusetts Drug Crimes: Charged Doesn’t Mean Guilty – Part One of Twohttp://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2016/10/massachusetts-drug-crimes-charged-doesnt-mean-guilty-part-one-two.html
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 04:59:51 +0000http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/?p=770When what you do in your profession involves defending as legal counsel people who have been charged with some very serious crimes, a common question is “How can you defend people who have been accused of such serious crimes?” My answer, as a Wrentham Mass. criminal defense attorney, is always the same: “Because they may be legally innocent.”

Drug crimes are an area that many people misunderstand – or perhaps more accurately, mis-context. They often assume that anyone charged with a Massachusetts drug offense must be some kind of drug-crazed criminal, or the local version of something like a ‘drug lord.’ Hardly. In fact, the truth is almost anything but this. Some examples? Being found by police to be carrying a controlled substance without a prescription on your person. This could happen while traveling through Logan Airport, or even if stopped in your car by police. Or providing any of your prescription pain medication to another person because they were in pain and couldn’t locate or get an appointment with their own doctor right away. Or selling or buying more than an ounce of marijuana to another (yes, pot.) Or a student who gives some of his or her Ritalin prescription to a friend in advance of exams. The list goes on and on. As a Massachusetts drug charges lawyer, I can say with certainty that 85%-90% of my Massachusetts drug charges clients are definitely not dangerous drug criminals.

But aside from this fact, another reason why I defend people accused of Massachusetts drug crimes, is that so often the evidence that police produce is questionable, to say the least. Let me take you through an extremely brief sequence of what is “supposed to” happen in a Massachusetts drug arrest: After the suspect is arrested and booked, any and all illegal drugs are required to be inventoried in writing by the arresting officer(s,) with records meticulously recorded in the process. The substances are then required to be locked away in the police department’s Evidence Room, where they are required to be kept, under lock, before they are then sent to a state drug laboratory for required testing, to determine if the substance is indeed what the police claim it is. Those drug testing reports are then supposed to be reported by the state drug testing lab to the police department that made the arrest, and also to the District Attorney’s Office that is prosecuting the case. You’ll notice that the phrase “supposed to be” is prominent in the above protocol description.

I don’t like the phrase “supposed to be”, because very often what is “supposed to be” done, isn’t done. And when it comes to drug cases, if drug inventory, custody and testing protocols aren’t followed as they are supposed to be, innocent people can be convicted. This problem was illustrated a few years ago in the now well-known “Annie Dookhan case,” where a Massachusetts state drug chemist intentionally falsified drug testing reports.

This has now happened again, and I’ll talk about it some more in my next post on this subject, shortly.

]]>770Massachusetts Supreme Court Reverses Gun Conviction, Bars Police From “Racially Profiling” Suspectshttp://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2016/09/massachusetts-supreme-court-reverses-gun-conviction-bars-police-racially-profiling-suspects.html
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 03:55:44 +0000http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/?p=763The Massachusetts SJC just issued a very controversial ruling in reviewing a criminal case that, as a Boston criminal defense lawyer, most people would expect me to agree with wholeheartedly. I don’t. My views aren’t going to win me much agreement with my colleagues in the criminal defense bar, but I just can’t support this finding.

A long case history made very short, is as follows: A black man by the name of Jimmy Warren was arrested by Boston Police officers almost five years ago, in December 2011. The arrest followed officers’ investigation of a Dec. 18, 2011 Roxbury break-in. The victim of the break-in gave police descriptions of the suspect, which included two men dressed in black hooded sweat shirts and a third man in a red hooded sweat shirt. About 30 minutes after the crime was reported as having occurred – and at two separate locations – two different Boston police officers noticed that Warren and a friend matched the description of the suspects, and asked the men to stop and speak with them. On the second occasion, the men suddenly bolted, a foot chase ensued, and one of the officers arrested Warren at gunpoint, after Warren struggled with the officer in the backyard of a home. Soon after that scuffle and arrest, a .22-caliber handgun was found on the front lawn of that home.

As a result, Warren was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. He was convicted of the charge, in a lower court, and appealed the conviction. The argument in that appeal? That police approached Warren solely on the basis of racial profiling. The attorneys representing Warren on appeal were from the American Civil Liberties Union.

As anyone who knows me or has ever read this blog knows, as a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I fight tooth and nail for all my clients. I wouldn’t be a criminal defense lawyer if I didn’t believe in carefully “policing the police,” and always making sure that police adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to all areas of criminal law: Stops, searches, seizures, arrests and questioning. My viewpoint here: If the courts don’t monitor and enforce that the constitutional rights of all citizens are protected by police, who will? I will never waiver from that principle, and I have fought many a police department over unconstitutional arrests, unlawful police practices and ungrounded (bogus) criminal charges.

That having been repeated here, I cannot agree with the SJC in this decision. The court, straining logical reasoning, ruled that police never had a “legally justifiable reason” to stop and speak with two men who:

Matched the ethnic description of the suspects ( i.e., were African-American)

Matched the reported age of the suspects

Matched the reported height & weight of the suspects

Matched wearing the clothing the suspects were described as wearing (i.e., hooded sweatshirts)

Were found near the location of the break-in

Importantly, the police didn’t arrest the suspect on the basis of all of the above – they simply asked to speak with him. At that point, Warren (the suspect) suddenly ran away without explanation – physically fought with officers when apprehended, and was later discovered, in fact, to possess an illegal handgun.

Quoting from the unanimous decision written by Justice Geraldine Hines, the justices ruled that “It was simply not possible for the police reasonably and rationally to target the defendant or any other black male wearing dark clothing as a suspect in the crime.” I find this reasoning unsupported by both the law and the facts. Note: Had these police officers arrested Warren solely on the basis of his appearance and nothing else whatsoever, I would thoroughly agree with this ruling. But all the officers wanted to do was speak briefly with him – and based on the suspects descriptions above, they legally had a reasonable basis to do so. More so, the suspect suddenly ran away without explanation, and later physically fought with officers who caught up with him.

Under Massachusetts law, when a person chooses not to interact with police and is later arrested, a judge must interpret whether the defendant’s actions are evidence of what is called “consciousness of guilt” (in other words, a guilty conscience) — or whether the refusal to speak with police is a reasonable choice made by an innocent person. Here, the defendant didn’t just choose not to speak or interact with police — he fled immediately without explanation. And that can reasonably be construed to be consciousness of guilt.

Instead, the court ruled that “A black person, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity,” the opinion stated. In other words, an African-American (or conceivably, another minority,) has a right to run away from police to “avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled.” We need, in this country and in this state, to stop seeing police as oppressive, jack-booted Nazis. Yes, some officers have made egregious mistakes, and when that has happened, they and their Departments need to beheld accountable. But police need reasonable tools to protect the general public – that means you and me. With this decision, police officers’ hands will be tied in similar circumstances in the future.

I will walk into court tomorrow and fight just as hard as I always do for my criminal defense clients. But I will not agree with this decision. It is foolhardy, it hampers public safety efforts, and strains legitimate legal analysis.

]]>763Texting While Driving: R U a Real Idiot? Part Two of Twohttp://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2016/09/texting-driving-r-u-real-idiot-part-two-two.html
Mon, 12 Sep 2016 03:39:35 +0000http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/?p=756In my previous post on this subject, I wrote about how bad the incidence of texting and driving has become– as well as cell phone use when driving – in Massachusetts and New England. Here I’ll discuss what’s being done in other states, and what might be done here to more aggressively tackle this change-resistant problem.

Presently, forty-six states in the U.S. have enacted laws against texting while driving. Almost all of those states also prohibit sending or reading email, or otherwise using the phone. Unfortunately, in Florida, texting is a secondary offense, which means that even if a police officer sees a driver texting, the officer can’t stop that driver unless another violation is observed, such as speeding.

Despite all these efforts, police and motor vehicle safety advocates will tell you that the problem is only growing worse. The predictable result? Thousands of serious injuries and deaths, across the country. As a Boston texting and driving lawyer, I see horrific injuries, scars, burns, paralysis and even deaths that inevitably follow.

Some examples of just how brazen many drivers can be on this issue:

From a state trooper: “We saw one driver who had two phones going at one time — one in his left hand and one in his right hand, with his wrist on the steering wheel.”

From West Bridgewater Police Chief Victor Flaherty: “We’ve seen cars in trees. We’ve had two houses hit within three weeks. We …stopped one car and …100 yards later it hit a parking lot [because the driver started texting again.]”

From a Route 128-area police officer: “I caught a teenager playing Pokemon Go on his phone while driving. I stopped one woman who was wathing Youtube.”

What do we do about this problem? As a Massachusetts motor vehicle offenses lawyer, I advocate two responses: 1) Legislation to increase the current penalties; and 2) A public education campaign to drive home the insanity of this ‘practice.’ In my previous post, I discussed how difficult it can be for police to prove that someone was texting or using their cell phone for another reason: Officers don’t have objective, electronic proof of the violation, such as lidar and radar do for speeding, and breathalyzers do for drinking and driving.

New York state may have developed a solution. Some legislators there proposed that police cruisers be equipped with a new device called the (appropriately) the “Textalyzer.” Police investigating a crash could use the device to scan the driver’s phone for any activity use immediately preceding the crash. The proposal has not yet been formally voted on, and will doubtless be objected to as an unlawful search. But if the search of the cell phone could somehow be limited to activity on the phone just immediately prior to the collision, – perhaps a maximum of five minutes and no more – it would without doubt be worth a try. New York state also has a law that puts texting offenses onto a drivers’ DMV driver records, which leads to higher points on their driving records, and higher insurance rates. That approach should be adopted by Massachusetts and other states, as well.

Fines for texting while driving in Massachusetts range from $100 for a first offense, $250 for second offense, and $500 for a third offense. In my view as a Massachusetts injury attorney who sees far more of the terrible consequences of this problem than he wished to, I think we need to get far more serious about this problem, and fast.

Some states, such as Louisiana, have increased the fine for first-time offenders from $175 to up to $500. I think that the Massachusetts Legislature should consider this. Which would you prefer: Knowing that “the other driver” on the road – or you as well, could be fined $500.00 for texting while driving, or be horrifically deformed in a Massachusetts car accident? Or perhaps paralyzed? Or perhaps killed? Or perhaps have a loved one killed? Quick: Which prospect is worse?

Jay Winsten, who directs the Center for Health Communication at Harvard’s School of Public Health, is developing a major media campaign against distracted driving. The center created a very successful campaign to combat drunken driving.

ATT Mobility has also waged a very laudable awareness campaign called “It Can Wait.” Hopefully, we’ll see change in public behavior soon.

]]>756Texting While Driving: R U a Real Idiot?http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2016/09/texting-driving-r-u-real-idiot.html
Sat, 03 Sep 2016 04:00:30 +0000http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/?p=752So many times when driving around, I ask myself, ”What is wrong with people these days? Are they just plain stupid, homicidal or suicidal?” I’m referring, of course, to the widespread and outrageously growing habit of texting while driving.

On a clinical level of mental health, I wonder what new, modern mental illness will soon be named to describe people who do this. “Subconsciously suicidal ideation?” “Pre-homicidal aggression?” Or how about calling a spade a spade, and just calling it for what it is: Idiotic. Truly, as a Boston car accident lawyer, I have seen an alarming spike in the number of serious Massachusetts motor vehicle accident injuries that have been cause by people texting and driving – or talking on their cell phones while driving. It’s almost unfathomable that drivers would risk their own lives, their families’ lives, and the lives of others, to read a ridiculous text message, or answer a phone call.

How bad has this problem become?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that in 2015, approximately 3,500 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes caused by distracted drivers in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. That figure was up from about 3,200 in 2014. Automobile deaths caused by cellphone use jumped from 406 in 2014 to 476 in 2015. And even those figures are deceptively low: Motor vehicle accidents involving cellphones are widely underreported, owing to the fact that police (who are almost never eyewitnesses to the actual collision) are forced to rely on what drivers report to them after the fact – and those drivers aren’t going to admit they were using their cell phones.

To quote Deborah Hersman, president and chief executive of the National Safety Council,“Police don’t have a Breathalyzer or a blood test to see if [drivers were using] using their phones.” “Police officers can ask people, ‘Can I see your phone?’ but people can refuse, so then they [police- have to get a search warrant.” Which they are unlikely to do – and too many drivers know this. In New York state, tickets issued for texting while driving took off like a rocket from approximately 9,000 in 2011 to almost 85,000 in 2015. Here in Massachusetts, texting tickets exploded from approximately 1,100 to a little over 6,100 over the same 4 year period. In California, the number of people ticketed for texting while driving catapulted from less than 3,000 in 2009 to more than 31,000 in 2015.

Due to simple geometrics and physics, many police departments have found it hard to patrol for this problem. Reason? For a police officer in a typical cruiser to actually see what a driver is doing with a cell phone or other mobile device, they need to be positioned higher than the vehicle they are observing – so their sightline is looking downward. Knowing that texting and driving is illegal, most drivers using a smartphone will hold the device in their laps, to keep it out of sight in case any police happen to be nearby. “Some people call [this practice] the ‘red-light prayer’ because their heads are bowed and they are looking down at their laps [while texting]” commented Chris Cochran, from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

As a result, many police departments are getting creative in their quest to stop this insane behavior. Chattanooga, Tennessee police sometimes patrol in a tractor-trailer so they can be positioned higher than other vehicles, to catch texting drivers. In Bethesda, Maryland, a police officer even disguised himself as a homeless person, standing at a busy intersection and radioing ahead to officers down the road to look out for drivers who were texting. In doing this for just two hours last October, police handed out 56 tickets. Here in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts, an officer regularly patrols town on his bicycle, which is higher than a seated driver, stops at stoplights and presents $105 tickets to them in the process. This officer reports that he gets the same answer all the time from people caught texting: ‘You’re right. I know it’s dangerous, but I heard my phone go off and I had to look at it.”

What these foolish drivers don’t realize, is that the next thing they look at may be an ambulance driver. I’ll talk about what Massachusetts and other states are trying to do to crack down on this insanity, in my next post in a few days. Stay tuned – because if the statistics are right, you’re among this population and you need to stop it. Now. For your own sake, if not someone else’s.

]]>752Shoplifting and Self-Serve Checkouts: A Bad Combination?http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2016/08/shoplifting-self-serve-checkouts-bad-combination.html
Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:52:08 +0000http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/?p=748As everyone knows, self-serve checkout stations at supermarkets continues to grow exponentially, even at retail store outlets that aren’t purely supermarkets like Stop & Shop, Star Markets or Shaw’s. Personally, I don’t like them as I find them too impersonal, and their expansion will continue to cut jobs in that industry. But the companies that own these store chains can cut a lot of labor costs – and that’s their goal, for good or ill.

On the “ill” side of things, though, this technology has brought about an increase in crime – specifically, shoplifting charges. More than one study has determined that the increased use of self-service checkouts correlates with an increase in revenue losses. One such wide-ranging study of retailers in the U.S., Britain and other European countries found that use of this technology produced an average revenue loss rate of 4 percent of gross sales. Since the profit margin of most supermarket retailers hovers around 3 percent, that almost makes use of self-service checkouts counter-productive from an earning standpoint.

Perhaps blame it on human nature, but many people seem to think that they’re “justified” if they sneak an item past the scanner and try to walk out without paying for that item. As a Wrentham Massachusetts shoplifting defense attorney, I know that I have seen an uptick in the number of people being charged with Massachusetts shoplifting charges. It’s really not worth it – not only on a purely legal and financial level, but on a conscience level, either. I have found that most of the clients I represent who have been charged with shoplifting, did it for a psychological reason – not a financial one. Many of these people feel that the world has ‘cheated’ them out of something or ‘taken something away’ from them – a job, career aspirations, happiness, better health – a variety of reasons.

Compounding the problem, many people don’t seem to think that being arrested for shoplifting is a ‘big deal.’ As a Massachusetts shoplifting defense lawyer, I can assure people – that this idea is not true. A conviction of a Massachusetts shoplifting offense can seriously damage one’s career, family relationships, friendships, and overall mental health. If you or someone you know is facing Massachusetts shoplifting charge, I strongly suggest that you seek out an attorney who has a lot of experience defending these cases.

]]>748BIG PHARMA OWNS OBAMA: DEA KEEPS POT CLASSIFIED WITH HEROINhttp://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2016/08/big-pharma-owns-obama-dea-keeps-pot-classified-heroin.html
Sat, 13 Aug 2016 04:53:11 +0000http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/?p=741No, the title of this post is not some Republican campaign slogan, and it’s not a joke, either.

Barack Obama’s Drug Enforcement administration (DEA) today issued its final decision that marijuana is to remain on the federal government’s list of the most highly dangerous and regulated drugs, the Associated Press reported today. The decision followed a petition by the governors of Washington state and Rhode Island to reclassify pot into a far less severe category. Note: That petition by the governors of the above states was filed at the DEA in 2011 – yes, it has taken the DEA five years to arrive at not only any decision in this matter, but the most scientifically and socially unsupported decision possible. This is your tax dollars at work: Stonewalling, inefficiency, foot dragging.

So why would the federal government take five years to reach this insulting and unsupportable decision? Two words: Politics and money – inseparable bedfellows. You see, controlled substances (regulated drugs) are classified by the DEA into five different “schedules” – from the most dangerous drugs that the federal government has declared have no medicinal value (“Schedule 1”,) to the least dangerous drugs that the DEA has declared do have medicinal value (“Schedule 5”.) Example: Heroin is classified as a Schedule 1 drug. Care to know where marijuana has been classified, for over 70 years? Correct: Schedule 1 – along with the likes of heroin – and extremely dangerous drug, with extremely high addiction potential.

]]>741Should Massachusetts Require Ignition Interlock Devices for First Offense Convictions? Part Two of Twohttp://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/2016/07/massachusetts-require-ignition-interlock-devices-first-offense-convictions-part-two-two.html
Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:02:39 +0000http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/?p=735In my previous post on this subject, I discussed how the Massachusetts Legislature is debating on whether to change the current OUI/DUI law in Massachusetts – known As “Melanie’s Law” for the young girl who was killed by a repeat drunk driver. The change now being vigorously argued over would require Ignition Interlock Devices (IID’s) to be mandatory for anyone convicted or pleading guilty to a first offense OUI. Currently, Massachusetts law requires IID’s to be installed for persons convicted of Operating Under the Influence for a second offense and higher.

As a Massachusetts DUI attorney, even though on a professional level I fight zealously in representing my clients as their legal counsel, on personal level I abhor the idea of driving while intoxicated. Who doesn’t? I don’t want myself or the people I love injured or killed by a drunk driver. But I’m a criminal defense attorney, and I know the dangers of trying to solve a public policy problem by wiping out important legal rights that our Constitution guarantees us all.

There are good, solid arguments on both sides of this proposal. Many who argue against the change worry that mandating IID’s for defendants convicted of a first offense OUI would encourage those defendants to elect a jury trial instead of pleading guilty. This would result in many more trials within the court system, and statistically would result in more than a small number of defendants being found not guilty by a jury or through a bench trial before a judge. In many ways, that would frustrate the proposal’s objective of minimizing the number of people on the road who would be inclined to drink and drive.

Another point opponents make is that many motorists may lose their jobs if they are required to install an ignition interlock device, since they drive company vehicles and those employers won’t want to install IID’s on their company vehicles.

In favor of the reasonableness of the change, it can be pointed out that over 25 states have enacted Ignition Interlock Device requirements for first offense OUI/DUI convictions, and the statistics indicate that the devices have successfully prevented first offenders from driving again while intoxicated. Further, it is widely expected that the number of states making this change will soon increase rapidly.

So should Massachusetts join the growing list of half the states in this country requiring IID’s for convictions of OUI first offenders?

For me, the answer lies in judicial discretion: If the law is enacted, I believe that it should vest judicial discretion in the judge hearing the case, to waive the requirement under select circumstances. Some of those circumstances could include when a blood alcohol or Breathalyzer test registers just slightly above the present legal limit of .08 – perhaps .081 to .085 or similarly low, and no injuries were involved. Or a circumstance where a person was home consuming just one drink as many people do after a long day at work – and a family emergency call came in suddenly, requiring the defendant to get in their car to race to a doctor’s office or hospital emergency room. If it were found that the defendant panicked and bolted into their car to get to their loved one, but had only one drink, registered just a fraction over the .08 limit, and there were no injuries involved when stopped by police, I believe a judge should have the discretion to waive the IID requirement.

Obviously, several “exigent” or emergent circumstances could be crafted within the legislation, allowing for such judicial discretion. Such a legislative compromise would, in my view as a Norfolk County criminal defense attorney, strike the dual goals of further reducing drunk driving in Massachusetts, while not ruining many first offenders lives under very benign circumstances surrounding their arrest.